• Blitz Shadow Player
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
08-05-2007, 01:51 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2007, 01:52 PM by von Nev.)
#50
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2.
Hey RedDevil, You are the first I have heard that got a refund. Did you get a refund from BFC or a retail store where you bought it? Steve from BFC said the sales are rolling in better than when CMBO was launched. I am thinking they are going to be in real trouble if they have to start refunding people.

It is a crying shame that we may be watching the slow death of the Combat Mission series as we know it. :conf:

For the life of me I still do not know why they deviated so far from the tried and true CMx1 series. They had an incredibly loyal base that have been playing the game for 7 years(!) that they purposefully went against in developing CM:SF. They said that CMx1 WEGO was dead (something they created) because it interferred with their chain of command stuff. Sheesh. Nothing like throwing in so much realism that the game is so damn complicated that once launched and stressed by players the whole thing (for some players) is a nightmare.

Here is an open statement to BFC:

"Your loyal customer CMx1 base wants and will BUY a product if it has the following:
- Updated CMx1 with better graphics, improved AI (but not so much it destroys the game), better simulation of arty, and . . . . well, that's about it."

If they did this they would sell tens of thousands of units! Instead they sell something almost too realistic (tracking individual men, individual bullets, etc) that is very buggy and has now caused (apparently) a near revolt from some on the BFC boards and customers now returning their product.

Sheesh. What were / are they thinking?!?

Marty

P.S. For full disclosure I have not bought the game nor downloaded the demo. My system is three years old and needs a new graphics card before I will download.
Quote this message in a reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-01-2007, 07:35 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-01-2007, 08:57 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 01:43 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 01:55 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 06:52 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 07:47 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 07:54 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 08:42 AM
RE:��The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 08:53 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 11:12 AM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-02-2007, 10:48 PM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by von Nev - 08-05-2007, 01:51 PM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-05-2007, 07:38 PM
RE: The differance between CMx1 and "CM"x2. - by Copper - 08-05-2007, 07:41 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 11 Guest(s)